Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 226 Filed 02/22/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 19679
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00515-LRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant HTC Corporation’s (“HTC”) Motion to Reconsider Denial
`
`of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of California
`
`(Dkt. No. 77). (Dkt. No. 97.) Having considered the motion and briefing, the Court is of the
`
`opinion that it should be and hereby is DENIED for the reasons as set forth herein.
`
`
`
`On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) sued HTC for
`
`patent infringement in this District. (Dkt. No. 1.) HTC moved to dismiss the complaint for lack
`
`of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern District of California
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“HTC’s Motion”). (Dkt. No. 29.) After the parties briefed HTC’s
`
`Motion, the Court ordered limited discovery and renewed briefing on the issue of personal
`
`jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 51.) On September 28, 2018, the Court issued an order, denying HTC’s
`
`Motion and finding that transfer to the Northern District of California was not clearly more
`
`convenient. (Dkt. No. 77.) The Court found that (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof
`
`and the availability of compulsory process weighed in favor of transfer; (2) the cost of willing
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 226 Filed 02/22/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 19680
`
`witnesses, administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, and local interests weighed
`
`against transfer; and (3) the avoidance of unnecessary conflicts of law, the familiarity of the forum
`
`with the governing law, and all other practical problems were neutral. (Id. at 11–22.)
`
`
`
`On December 20, 2018, HTC filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order
`
`denying HTC’s Motion and to transfer the current proceedings to the Northern District of
`
`California. (“HTC’s Motion for Reconsideration”). (Dkt. No. 97.) According to HTC, discovery
`
`has shown that three factors now weigh in favor of transfer or are neutral: (1) the local interests in
`
`adjudicating the dispute, (2) the cost of willing witnesses, and (3) the relative ease of access to
`
`sources of proof. With respect to local interests, HTC argues that recent facts show that AGIS was
`
`incorporated in this District solely for the purposes of litigation and thus has no legitimate local
`
`interest in this case. (Id. at 7–9.) This stands in contrast to Google, who HTC contends is very
`
`important to the dispute and that Google’s “criticality . . . to this litigation creates a local interest
`
`in the Northern District of California.” (Id. at 9.) With respect to the cost of willing witnesses,
`
`HTC argues that discovery has shown that both parties each have at most two willing witnesses
`
`making this factor “at least neutral.” (Id. at 11.) However, HTC continues to submit, as it did in
`
`its initial Motion, that “this factor may most fairly be counted to slightly favor transfer” because
`
`the transferee forum is more convenient for its Taiwan-based witnesses. (Id.) Finally, HTC argues
`
`that “while the Court already found in its Order that [the relative ease of access to sources of proof]
`
`slightly favors granting transfer, newly discovery evidence demonstrates that this factor strongly
`
`favors granting transfer.” (Id. at 13.) In particular, discovery has “wholly confirmed” the Court’s
`
`prior finding that Google documents in the Northern District of California favor transfer. (Id. at
`
`12.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 226 Filed 02/22/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 19681
`
`There are only three grounds for granting a motion to reconsider: “(1) an intervening
`
`change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the
`
`need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co.,
`
`318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 329, 331 (W.D.
`
`Tex. 2002) (holding that motions to reconsider serve the limited purpose of “permit[ting] a party
`
`to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovery evidence.”); accord Tex.
`
`Instruments, Inc. v. Hyundai Elecs. Indus., Co., 50 F. Supp. 2d 619, 621 (E.D. Tex. 1999).
`
`“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be
`
`used sparingly” and the motion must “clearly establish” that reconsideration is warranted. Modern
`
`Am. Recycling Servs. v. Dunavant, No. 10-3153, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79649, at *6 (E.D. La.
`
`June 8, 2012) (citing Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)). Mere
`
`disagreement with a district court’s order does not warrant reconsideration of that order. Krim,
`
`212 F.R.D. at 332. “When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than mere
`
`disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and
`
`should not be granted.” Dunavant, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79649, at *6 (collecting cases).
`
`HTC has failed to raise any grounds that warrant reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.
`
`While HTC couches its motion on the basis of newly discovered facts, the arguments raised in its
`
`Motion for Reconsideration are the very same ones that were raised in its initial motion to
`
`transfer, and the supplemental discovery cited in support of its motion does not materially alter
`
`the Court’s original analysis and conclusion. HTC’s Motion for Reconsideration appears to
`
`be based on nothing more than a mere disagreement with the Court’s prior judgment. Much
`
`more is required to satisfy the high bar of reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
`
`HTC’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Dkt. No. 97.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 226 Filed 02/22/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 19682
`
`4
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of February, 2019.
`
`